Relationalist View on the Dissolution of Former Yugoslavia and Emergent New States

Times After a logic-based foundation of Dialectic Relationism, as a holistic doctrine and a comprehensive systemic-dialectic methodology, in which the relations between the elements (units) constituting a system play the dominant role in its behavior, and even determine the very existence of the elements (units), we demonstrate its applicability to the political arena of international interactions of states and, in particular, to the dissolution of complex state entities and the emergence of new states. Then, we examine in more detail the processes leading to the dissolution of Former Yugoslavia and the emergence of new states following its break up. We elucidate the role of both internal and external factors in the dissolussion process and the role of international relations and environment in the political recognition of the new states. This Relationism concept provides a general framework for description and understanding of socio-political processes and regimes in individual states and international system as a whole.

from his Principle of Sufficient Reason. The relationist concept of Leibniz, that relations are the texture of space-time, in which the particular entities exist and the events take place, was, in the mid-fifties of last century, applied to the dynamics of social systems, in which the individuals "are not assumed as independent existences present anterior to any relation, but gain their whole being in and with their relations" (Cassirer, 1995). Meanwhile, this sociological relationism underwent further developments (see e.g., Emirbayer, 1997). The Leibniz relationist idea was taken by J. Kaipayil (Kaipayil, 2009) to develop a relationist theory of reality. His "ontic relationism" addresses the metaphysical problem of the one and many, i.e., the unity and plurality. Entities are constituted by their multiple relations.
Recently, we have developed a relationist theory of the international political system and its units (the states) (Janev, 2010;Janev, 2003). Unlike in the theories of Cassirer and Kaipayil, where the supremacy of the relation in the system is taken as a postulate, we have derived the fundamental character of the relation in the system by addressing the basic ontological problem "why is there something, rather than nothing", formulated also by Leibniz in his "Principles of Nature and Grace". In Heidegger's reformulation of the problem, "something" is replaced by "Everything" and "nothing" by "Nothingness" (Heidegger, 2000). Using the principles of dialectic methodology and general systems theory, it was logically derived in (see Janev, 2010) that the existence of the opposing poles in the ontological problem results from the fundamental relation uniting them. The relation in a system is carrier of certain interaction between two or more units in the system, between groups of units in the system, and it is a condition sine qua non for the existence of the system itself. The dynamics of the system (changes, evolution, stability, and other properties) are determined by the relations in the system. We call this philosophical doctrine dialectic relationism, as opposed to the ontic relationism of J. Kaipayil. In the next section of this Chapter we derive the fundamental relation, as solution of the "something"-"nothing" (or "Everything"-Nothingness") ontological problem and apply its methodology in the analysis of some complex systems (the states, international political system). We mention here only that the introduction of the relation as a basic element of the international political system, leads to a structural unification of realist and liberal (or their neo-versions) political doctrines, the difference arising only from the character of the relations: opposition (realists) or cooperation (liberals). In that section, we also provide some examples from the world political history of significant changes on the world political landscape, generally after catastrophic political events, resulting from the interplay of the relations among the political actors.
In the subsequent sections, we apply the methodology of dialectic relationism to analyze the dissolution of former Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia (SFRY), particularly the role of the internal and external factors and relations in this process, as well as their interconnection. The establishment of new states, on the basis of former Yugoslav republics, is also discussed, particularly from the aspect of their political (diplomatic) recognition by other states of international community and their admission to the United Nations membership. In this context some specific legal issues that arose with the continuation www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 38 Published by SCHOLINK INC. of the UN membership of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and the admission of Macedonia to UN membership (Janev, 1999;Janev, 2006).

Basis of Dialectic Relationism
In addressing the metaphysical problem "why is there something, rather than nothing" we first remind of the three basic principles of dialectic methodology (see, Hegel, 1977;Engels, 1968): 1) unity and conflict of opposites (which drives the changes), 2) transformation of quantity to quality (at a certain critical level of the quantity; called phase transition in natural sciences), and 3) negation of the negation.
These principles are operative in any composite entity, system of entities and its sub-systems and are all involved in their dynamical behavior. For a complete understanding (and description) of the dynamics of complex systems it is necessary also to invoke the principles of General Systems Theory: 1) the complex system represents a unified whole of entities (elements) and their interactions. 2) A complex system exhibits properties and behaviors distinct from those of its elements or parts (subsystems) (i.e., collective, or global, properties and behaviors). Among the most important of collective properties of complex systems are: synergism, feedback loops, coherence, self-organization, (selfcontrol, self-regulation, adaptation).
3) The complex system and its environment (entities outside its boundary) form an open system; the dynamics of the complex system, as well as its properties and behavior, are then strongly affected by its interaction with the environment and by the interactions of its elements (parts, sub-systems) with the entities of the environment. Keeping in mind that the interaction represents the substantive content of any relation, it is clear that the dynamics of open complex systems is highly relevant for the analysis of international political system, its sub-systems and even its basic entities (the states).
Turning to the metaphysical problem of "something" vs. "nothing", we should first note that semantically "something" and "nothing" are opposite to each other; they are also negation of each other.
As abstract entities in a system, they have opposite "polarity". According to the first (of above listed) principles of dialectics, united (in a system) the "something" and "nothing" are in a permanent conflict relationship. This relationship ensures their unity and contradictory existence/non-existence. Therefore, "something" and "nothing" (and for that matter "somethingness" ("everything") and "nothingness") exist only as logical poles of a fundamental ontological relation. In its classical (Leibniz's or Heidegger's) formulation ("something" vs. "nothing", "everything" vs. "nothingness"), the basic metaphysical problem is an ill-posed problem and creates the logical paradox of existence. The systemic-dialectic resolution of this paradox again leads to the irreducible fundamental ontological relation (see Janev, 2010), and thereby to the resolution of classical metaphysical problem. Below, we briefly outline the derivation of this resolution.
The conflicting interaction (contradiction) of opposing elements in a closed system, as well as in its constitutive sub-elements, causing their changes, implies a process of division of the element ad infinitum in the quest for the elementary "something", the basic element. In following the process of successive division of the element towards its basic form, we shall apply the dialectic principles of negation of the negation and the transformation of quantity to quality. The later principle states that the change of the quantity creates, at certain critical level, a new quality. The continuation of the division process presumes that at any stage of its progression there is always a non-zero quantity for any of its opposing sub-elements. In the process of infinite division of the element, we have to suppose that the quantities of the two sub-elements, forming the element, converge to a zero quantity of somethingness at infinity. An important question here appears about whether both of the two sub-elements reach the zero-quantity value at infinity, or only one of them does so. Reaching the zero-quantity value (of somethingness) is certainly a critical level of change of the quantity, and it has to be accompanied by creation of a new quality (the absence of somethingness). On the other hand, the dialectic principle of unity of contradictions requires that any change of the quality must be provided through the tensions of contradictions, carried out in the case of element's division by its sub-elements. The role of contradicting elements in triggering the change is, however (by definition) never absolutely symmetrical; the equilibrium of the tensions would never produce a change in quality. This implies that in the division process only one of the opposing sub-elements can reach the zero-quantity value (of somethingness), i.e., can be transformed into a new quality (absence of somethingness). Remarkably, in this separation of sub-elements, their contradiction is not lost; it is only transformed into another, more fundamental and irreducible (since the division process has reached its end) contradiction between two qualities: one with a non-zero quantity of somethingness (hence, existence), the other with a zeroquantity value of somethingness (i.e., non-existence). Thus, the asymmetrical nature of the contradiction between the sub-elements, driving the division process, precludes the possibility that the separated entities at the final stage of the process simultaneously reach the zero-quantity value of somethingness, defining the absence of any quantity of somethingness, i.e., the Nothingness. The other product of the final stage of the division process obviously represents the whole somethingness, i.e., the Everything. It should be noted that in carrying out the division process it was assumed that the quantity of somethingness is union of "something" and "nothing" (or "Everything" and "Nothingness") and represents an "absolutely contradicting self-identity", a dynamic tension of opposites that, unlike in Hegel's dialectic logic, does not resolve in synthesis.
From the point of view of General Systems Theory, something (S) and nothing (N), being in contradiction to each other, and mutually inseparably connected, form by necessity a system, or a "primitive relation". The most essential characteristic of this system is the intrinsic inter-connection of S and N, making them inseparable, without which neither of them can be, nor can the system they form exist. Since S and N are mere elements of the system (the poles of the connecting interaction), it follows that the existence of a relation between S and N is a prerequisite for their own existence (as elements of the system) and the existence of the system itself. It appears, thus, that the relation is a more fundamental entity in the system than the elements. The system {S, N} is obviously the most fundamental one, and the relation between S and N can be called fundamental irreducible relation. Hence, the origin of both S and N is their systemic relation from which they are inseparable. The extension of the supremacy of the relation over the elements (derived from the principles of dialectic logic) to a complex dynamic system, constitutes the doctrine of Dialectic Relationism.
As mentioned earlier, the complex dynamical system is characterized by a multitude of elements and a plethora of interactive relations among them and among groups of elements of the system (subsystems). Moreover, in the complex dynamical systems collective properties emerge, such as coherence, self-organization, self-regulation, etc. that generate new types of relations which do not have antagonistic character, but rather an attractive, cooperative character required for preserving the functionality and stability of the system.
We now give a brief overview of the processes in the modern organized social and political systems from the viewpoint of the dialectic relationism. The state, as a social system with a complex structure (individuals, social groups organized around certain sets of ideas), is the basic element of international political system. With an enormous number of particular interests of its components, its functional consistency and self-preservation is ensured by an accepted set of rules of behavior and constrains (Law) that legitimizes the distribution of power within the state. The power distribution is determined through the competition of opposing contenders (political parties), whose relations generally have antagonistic character, but the members of the parties obviously share co-operative relations.  February 4-11, 1945) regarding the future of defeated Germany and its war allies, and the reorganization of post-war Europe. Germany lost about 25% of its territory, given mainly to Poland to compensate for the loss of its territories given to the Soviet Union; the remainder of Germany was divided into four occupied zones, out of which two independent German states would later be formed (East and West Germany).
Politically, one of the major outcomes of the Second World War was the creation of two ideologically opposite alliances ("Western bloc"-USA and Western Europe, and "Soviet bloc"-Soviet Union and the socialist countries of Eastern Europe), out of which two military alliances emerged ("NATO" and the "Warsaw pact"). This antagonistic "mega-relation" (called "cold war") between the two blocs persisted until the dissolution of Soviet Union (1990), threatening the World with a cataclysmic nuclear war.
The territorial reconfigurations of political landscape at the post-war peace treaties are aimed at establishing a long-term balance of power on the world political scene. The generation of new political entities (states or state-like entities) by such treaties, reflecting the conflicting relations (interests) of treaty-parties, primarily serves the goal of equipartition of political gains and not satisfaction of aspirations of certain ethnic groups for establishing nation-statehood. The creation of United Nations in 1945 with the aim to prevent future wars, based on co-operative relations between its member states, has provided a mechanism for addressing the problem of non-self-governing territories having a colonial status. On the basis of the "Declaration Regarding the Non-Self-Governing Territories" (Chapter XI of the UN Charter, on December 14, 1960, the UN General Assembly at its 15th session adopted the "Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples" (GA/Res.1514 (XV)), after which the process of decolonization began, resulting in proliferation of many new states on the international political arena.

Brief History of Dissolution of the Former Yugoslavia and Emergence of New States in Its Aftermath
The processes leading to the disintegration of Former Yugoslavia, associated with inter-ethnic wars has been subject to many popular journal publications and scholarly analyses, in which the causes, chronology of the events and consequences have been discussed (see, e.g., Glenny,1993;Cohen, 1993;Lazić, 1994;Obrenović, 1994;Nakarada, 1995;Woodward, 1995;Simić, 1995;Silber and Little, 1997 The present section does not aim to give a detailed account of all aspects of these processes (e.g., (constituted by representatives of the six republics and two autonomous provinces), with Tito acting as its permanent President until his death. After Tito's death in 1980, the nationalist and separatist tendencies within some of the federal units began to grow rapidly. These tendencies were strongly supported by foreign countries with which they had a common history or long cultural relations (e.g., Slovenia and Croatia with Austria, Germany, Italy and Hungary, Kosovo and Metohia with Albania).
The visible form of this support in the case of Slovenia and Croatia was manifested in development of  It should be mention that Slovenia and Croatia were actively supporting the separatist aspirations of Kosovo Albanians for independence from Serbia. The separatist aspirations of these two republics started openly to be expressed and openly supported by Germany and some other EU countries. Croatia was secretly planning a forceful separation from Yugoslavia and buying arms from Hungary. As a reaction to the separatist tendencies in Croatia and Kosovo and Metohia, the nationalist sentiment in Serbia also started to grow. It was motivated primarily by the concern for the destiny of Serbian population in these two federal units with strong inter-ethnic tensions (already violently manifested in Kosovo and Metohia and having historical roots in the World War II in Croatia). The growth of nationalist sentiment of the Bosniaks in Bosnia and Hercegovina, where the population of Serbs was also large, significantly increased the potential for severe inter-ethnic conflicts. The national rights of the Serbs in Bosnia and Hercegovina became an additional concern for Serbia.   fighting troops, to disarm the arm forces od RSK, to ensure the YPA withdrawal from the UN protected areas and the return of refugees to these areas. The RSK president refused to endorse the Agreement, but Serbian President Milošević persuaded the RSK parliament to replace him and accept the Agreement. The acceptance of the Agreement by Serbia was motivated by its primary purpose to create favorable conditions for negotiations of the permanent solution to the conflict. The Agreement produced a longer-lasting ceasefire, but failed to completely implement the other of its objectives. After  states became attractive geostrategic targets for the world powers.

Conclusion
In the first part of this chapter we have laid down the historical background and the philosophical basis of a new doctrine, which we call Dialectic Relationism according to which the relations between the elements in a system play the dominant role in the system, determine its properties, behavior and are even the cause for the element's existence in the system. The relations within a system are responsible for its unity and stability, but also for its disintegration. In complex systems, formed as union of subsystems, the relations between the sub-systems have the same meaning and role but, in addition, these systems acquire also certain collective properties and behavior. The fundamental character of the relation has been derived by using the dialectic logic in resolving the basic metaphysical problem of 'something-nothing' duality. In fact, it is the relation that transforms this duality into a unity.
In  simultaneous dissolution of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact had a further "environmental" political impact on the dissociation of Former Yugoslavia, in the sense that the separation from an "authoritarian" complex state-entity, based on nationalist interests, was considered at the time as an acceptable natural expression of national aspirations for sovereign statehood (supported by the principle of "self-determination"). Furthermore, the newly emerged independent sovereign states represented potential candidates for western alliances, such as NATO and EU, likely impacting the change in the balance of power on the Balkans.
We have also discussed some legal issues related to the question of continuation of the UN membership